Evening Exchange; Affirmative Action and Iraq War

The the the media and the war the war itself the demonstrations over affirmative action and the case itself all next evening next day because the charges are true will help your case. That's right. It's there it's true I've just signed up not for stories the affirmative action arguments today before the U.S. Supreme Court. How. Is anybody approaching the court today Jan knew that today was a special day. Well that's right Ray this case is widely considered the most important affirmative action case that the court has

taken up in a generation and the mood inside the courtroom and outside the courtroom reflected those high stakes. Well this is a student body that's proud of the past but they're not resting on their laurels. And particularly this year when the University of Michigan affirmative action cases came up and they were headed towards the Supreme Court our students took the initiative of actually submitting a brief to the court what's known as a friend of the court brief an amicus curiae brief indicating of their concerns about affirmative action and the need for the court to affirm what's going on at Michigan University or law school is faced with a serious problem when it's one that gets thousands of applications for just a few slots. We're going to have to be selective and inherent in cheating. It's making. Choices about what students to a man.

So you have an element here that suggests that there are many reasons why a particular student would be admitted or not. And a lot of factors go into it. So how do you single this out and how are we certain that there is an injury to your client that she wouldn't have experienced for other reasons. Well Your Honor First of all race is impermissible because of the constitutional command of equality. The university is certainly free to make of many different kinds of choices and in selecting students and to look for all kinds of different diversity experience will diversity perspective diversity without regard to race but race because your honor of the cost. Social commanded equality must be beyond the bounds. You got the sense that this was an important case when African-American college students often chided by their elders for political apathy took to the streets of

Washington by the thousands in support of affirmative action University of Michigan in both its undergraduate and law schools has admission policies that seek to ensure diversity in the academic setting. Because race is a factor in those policies the Supreme Court is now considering lawsuits filed by white students who say the race factor and no other. And that's important is what kept them from being admitted. The Bush administration joined the case on their side a case in which a hundred and two briefs were filed. We've discussed the pros and cons of this case before but since that time the war has broken out serving to underscore some of the broader implications of the nation's historical racial divide. Joining us now is Theodore Shaw is associate director and counsel of the Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Gregory Kane is a columnist for The Baltimore Sun who has written on this issue and I keep that count too. You know Hossa is a graduate of the University of Michigan Law School. Welcome to your IQ to allow me to start with you. You went to the University

of Michigan Law School. Why did you come down in this case. I strongly support affirmative action and I consider myself a proud beneficiary and advocate for the issue. You're on a mission to the University of Michigan was as a result of the admission policy that is now before the Supreme. That's correct. Tell us a little bit about your experience of law school and its impact on your own point of view. Well I was born and raised in Texas and I attended my undergraduate school at Texas Tech University which is a lot but I love that it's located in West Texas and it's probably known right now for Bobby Knight and the basketball team. And I thought you didn't notice when I mentioned before that you know they're going to sign a little ESPN was. When I was at Texas Tech one of the things that I had to deal with was tokenism the consequences and the burdens of tokenism because many of my West Texas classmates came from environments that were racially

homogenous and college was the first time that they were able to interact with students of color because of that. As a student of color I was seen as the representative from my race. People looked at my views as representative of everybody. Black or Latino. And at the same time I was seen as an exception to the rest of the black and Latino populations because of my high achievements. And it was that lack of diversity at the school that really resulted and that those feelings of tokenism did you find the diversity at the University of Michigan Law School. I did the University of Michigan really showed meaningful diversity at its best and it really helped me understand the importance of critical mass. I went to Texas Tech at the time of the hoplite decision which eliminated affirmative action in the Fifth Circuit. I attended the University of Michigan both its law school and I also receive my master's of social work from there. During the time of these Michigan lawsuits so as far as you're concerned the admissions policies worked to achieve the objective of the university and you wanted

the worst death. Definitely Gregory can you have written your column that's a good objective but there might be a better way to achieve it. I think there is a better way too if you were the part of the front of action as is done now as is done by the University of Michigan is that it violates one of Ollie's as one of the judges said in cases that want to be a student or try to get into Michigan's law school volleys Title Six of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. OK. It also abolished the language of executive order 1 1 2 4 6 issued by President Johnson in a September 1965 which specified employment shall be done with out regard to race creed color national origin and a friend of Russia performs want things done with regard to race. So it's hard to get around that and a lot. I suggest that you know if I'm going to Michigan I would have the same number of black students they're out. Given that 20 points that there were black students in Spanish for how would you do. I would give them 20. Given what if they graduate from high school in Detroit and one of the

predominant black inner city has given what he points if he graduated from high school in Baltimore if he got into Northern High School which has a very bad reputation. They were able to put up a good point as I gave them but just because they survived so it depends on where they went. There I would award the points here are going to get around the race thing. What's wrong with Greg McCann's approach what's right about the University of Michigan. Well I want to respectfully disagree with Brother King and let me let me do it on a number of grounds. First I should say that I taught on the faculty at the University of Michigan for three years in the early 1990s and during that time the then dean of the law school who is Bowen ger named defendant in these two cases will now is present. Columbia University pointed me to say when the admissions committee that drafted the policy is under attack first I want to distinguish between the law school and the undergraduate program that we're discussing.

It's in the undergraduate institution that a 20 point. Award is given to under-represented minorities also individuals from low economic status backgrounds can get the 20 point athletes etc.. No way really pays much attention but the law school program doesn't work that way. Secondly you stated that the the law school's plan is in violation. Executive order 1 1 2 6 which doesn't apply to admissions that as you I think stated does apply to employment but with respect to Title 6 there are regulations implementing Title 6 that Congress has let stand. The courts have been through a long time now which make it clear that a permanent action is not inconsistent with the purposes of Title 6 but one portly. I

think that. It's a vital vitally important to understand what is at stake here and what is at stake here. This is a broad attack on any attempts to consciously do anything about racial inequality on a voluntary basis in this country. So even your plan giving 40 points to people the dominant black high schools will be attacked by the same people who are suing the University of Michigan as a race conscious plan I mean they're attacking the percentage plans in Texas. I was about to say it's my understanding that the percentage of plants in Texas and Florida are likely to also be the result ultimately or didn't subject of court cases. Well that's right these folks are really waging attack on any attempts to consciously do anything about racial inequality on a voluntary basis. I mean it's really important understand that this is not happenstance this is a concerted attack that a lot of people don't quite understand. So my bottom line is that

Michigan recognizes as I think we all should that this country has a very very long history going back even before the formation of the Union. Discrimination against African-Americans or subjugation in the form of slavery and then segregation which only began to be addressed and may have thought it was just an us word gets a little confusing in the minds of some people because the University of Michigan plans on not only talking about African-Americans they're also talking about Native Americans and they're talking about other minority groups which do not necessarily have a shared historical experience and I speak to that one moment because it is it's essentially important because I am reminded these days I was up in the Supreme Court I was a law student at the time. On the day that Bucky came down 1978 978 June in 1970 June 30th 1978 if I remember correctly maybe the 20th but any event I remember. Coming from the Supreme Court that day just devastated because Baki was a loss. What

we lost and we meaning African-Americans was a notion that the put into Amendment means anything in particular for African-Americans given our history and the history of the adoption of the amendment. So the court's decision was factually and historically wrong at that time but that was his decision. And we also lost on the issue of whether institutions could do something voluntarily to try to remedy our institutional history of segregation discrimination against African-Americans other than their own specific actions. And that's women this one is a really thorny issue that I'd really like to hear. Reverend I can take a look at and that is that it seems as if the argument about diversity is in a way an argument of convenience because the argument about making up for past wrongs has already been lost in the courts. Well that's exactly right. If you talk about the making of a past Rossouw under-represented minorities Asians underwent some of the same discrimination and same racism. For some reason they're not counted as in I'm under represented minorities because they're not under represented.

OK. Exactly because they get into this corner of cities and when the GOP needs to get in strictly on those but we'll have bases in a lot of schools but they have a different phenomenon that goes on. I mean a whole lot of things said African-American experience African-Americans experience that are very different from the Asian-American experience and in fact if you unpack the Asian-American experience just not only one experience there are some subgroups of what we call Asian Americans who have profiles are very similar in either the African-American experience you get native born African-American you've got some of come from the West Indian Indians who tend to do as a group a lot better than native born and African American. Well I want to move on to the what's before the Supreme Court right now the demonstrations that took place before the arguments that took that took place in the Supreme Court itself. What's your take on what's likely to happen here right. I'm optimistic. I don't think that Scalia and Rehnquist view will win out overall. I hope that even if there isn't an outright win on our side that it wouldn't be as extreme

as the right of the court would like to have it. I believe that to get a majority there would need to be some concessions made on either side. I'm not sure whether both the law school and the undergraduate school cases will stand there I hope they do. But I do look forward to hearing the court articulate standards and hopefully reaffirm the importance of diversity and continuing to take race into account. Gregory Payne my looking at Justice Sandra Day O'Connor of questions with the only judge on one gets the impression and she was generally considered the swing vote on the Supreme Court. One gets the impression that she feels that regardless of whether or not you agree with what the University of Michigan did that race ought to be a factor of some way or the other in these admissions programs. If you want to assure diversity were the litigants are arguing that that disprove seriously with the Constitution bards. You have to add that I think the Constitution does part that's why I tried to find another way to get around this

other than by using the race thing. I think that I don't think the court's going to one of these when I really don't. First of all in the Bahai case they ruled that quotas were legal but that race could be taken into account in the Supreme Court on whether they had made a causal laziness because they would be you know overruling a precedent. So I think that you know they're probably going to stick with the president precedent at this point but if she's going to keep cropping up again and again. Well you know the Supreme Court has never said that the Constitution is colorblind has a lot of rhetoric out there about that. But there's not a ruling that said that Sandra Day O'Connor's questions from the bench indicated or reflected that the court at least she may be unwilling to go there secondly the you know Rocky was a compromise because Justice Powell wrote this opinion about the diversity and rested access for African-American students. In the interest of the university not known interest in access to opportunity but the university's interest in diversity

and so that was a compromise and because discrimination in our history is unpalatable. The quote still doesn't want to go there. But this is a push from the right. And my concern and I agree with you. Basically what I think is likely to happen. My concern is that they're going to up hold the perimeter back in Inform but perhaps to make it much more difficult on the now tailoring groused to implement affirmative action. There are so many ironies involved here the Bush administration decided to join the case on the part of the side of the plaintiffs Dr. King's birthday and we are having this conversation on the day that Dr. King was killed. And we're having a just a little while before the 50th anniversary of Brown versus Board of Education all of which takes place next year all of which says that clearly this country struggled with the issue of race is far from over for I'd be going to have to take a short break we'll be right back. The controversy over the initial war plan. Our journalists on that and other events of the week. Next tell us how you plan to do you want to

know anyway. And the conclusion for sometime in this path of heat Well let's let's make the best case of that. The war with its announced a plan this is country. We test regime of Bath Party is not one man or one family. On World News Tonight the US drive for Baghdad goes into higher gear entering the red zone. The Pentagon leadership and its war plan. Does it need defending. Inside the militants camp looking for the evidence of terrorism. U.S. forces reached the edge of Baghdad today amid continued fighting across Iraq. The U.S. 3rd Infantry Division closed in on the Saddam International Airport in the southwestern outskirts of the city. Armored units pushed to within six miles of the Iraqi capital meeting little resistance.

The bus drivers told us they left their U.S. News broadcast images of bus loads of it. Iraqi civilians and soldiers leaving Baghdad and surrendering to U.S. troops in central Iraq. Here now to provide insight and hindsight Jack White of Time magazine David Corn Washington editor of Nation magazine and a Fox News contributor to Swedish broadcasting and Gregory Payne The Baltimore Sun is still with us. Let's go immediately to what's going on right now and that is it would appear that the United States and the coalition forces are entering Baghdad even as we speak. They think that that airport this I guess is expected to be the fiercest part of the fight today. The information minister of Iraq here on television promising it would be a big fight that might involve the use of unconventional means of some sort. Nobody knows exactly what that is. Another bizarre thing that happened today is that there were

two appearances of someone purporting to be Saddam Hussein on Iraqi television one in which he read a statement urging Iraqis to fight against what he called the invaders and the other in which he was shown sort of walking around an unknown disclosed place in Iraq kissing babies and rallying rallying the forces against the American invaders. So the war appears to be that but even the Pentagon says that we're now at a pivotal stage which may involve some of the fierce fighting most fierce fighting we've seen we've experienced over the television yet. That does look like things are at the break point where we can would you expect to be happening in the next few days as Jack did. This is really where it was going to get tough. I mean we've had 50 some dates so it's I think going to see that increase sharply as it is to street to street fighting because it is the work plan has been criticized but there's no way to point that out is just

something we have to go in and do and I think the Iraqis who are defending their own country in their own capital. This is where you want to see them fight most fiercely inside Baghdad itself there because what about the possibility that they won't fight fiercely. Well we don't know we don't know whether the Republican Guard forces that are embedded into the city or whether it be the regular troops. I did a piece that came out in Slate dot com today we have a part and I found a Pentagon briefing prepared last summer on how to invade an urban city. It just happened to be Baghdad and they had seven scenarios and they're very different. There was a siege scenario and which is sort of bring the city turn off the lights and stop the water and food going in to try to you know sweated out. There are other ways in which they sort of just form ground troops and they just sweep through the city. Another one is that you try to take it neighborhood by neighborhood and they've identified what they think are the neighborhoods that are more likely to be in favor of the U.S. troops and they even had one option which they called Robin Rising a massive air campaign that would break supposedly break the resistance.

In talking to generals retired and others before the war began you had a sense of a strong work plan for the first five days. Basra falls day what didn't happen and then we get to Baghdad within three days and then you'd ask what happens then. The answer was usually some variant of. Well see hoping that things would collapse hasn't collapsed and we still don't know if they have a plan or whether they're going to be at hawking it day by day. The scenario than any signs at all of there's unlikely to be a collapse on the other hand very fierce fighting on the part of the Iraqi military. Well this is the thing it's so impossible to know either a collapse or what we've seen so far is the feeling of pride and humiliation among Iraqi people who hate Saddam Hussein but who are ready apparently to commit suicide to show that they are resisting the occupation as they see it of the American forces and we certainly don't know if there will be chemical or biological weapons either although

suicide martyr missions seem to be in favor right now with people volunteering from other Arab countries as well. And at the beginning of this week when it looked as if it were taking longer to get to Baghdad than was Baghdad than initially thought. All kinds of retired generals they openly and and active. Officers anonymously began the same. This is not exactly what we planned to fight. This is a bit of a surprise in the administration in particular Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. I'm going to. Well let's just to parse this one is what what General Wallace was a commander of the ground forces in Iraq. This is not where you want to be not what we war gamed for. That's one comment that has to be taken very seriously. The rest of it is one of those things that makes me glad sometimes and I'm in Washington because I like to see a tempest in a teapot. This is a huge fuss that is not going to be significant at all if the war goes well six months from now everybody will have forgotten about this entirely except the military who will go back and take a

look and see where what went wrong and will try to program it into into future invasions if we have them. The people making this criticism have political agendas a lot of it has to do with dislike which I share of Donald Rumsfeld's approach to everything and in that sense is justified but on the other hand right now many of those criticisms made early in the week don't look so valid. We're at the brink of the seizure of the bank that your take on this rhetoric and the administration as I said criticize those who are criticizing the administration the administration saying we didn't promise that this would be a short swift war or a cakewalk. Yet there were those in the media who said yes you did. I think it was it was either implied or people were assuming that you know since he has really kicked the butt so what was a for Arab countries in 1907 in six days. It would be the same case here. There's a difference. Iraq was in that war. Different leadership in

Iraq now and in it was in 1967 and in that case we had the Israelis taken a bigger surprise preemptive strike on the Arab air forces which more or less decided the war. Whereas you know the Iraqis knew this was coming for months at a time. My criticism goes to those generals in the field who claim that Iraqis are fighting fair because you have some pretended surrender and then a fight. Well there was a suicide bomber. That they're defending their own country they don't have the bathroom. OK but you shouldn't expect it at any rate. Indeed David Corn you use the term Iraqis rather than regime. It would appear that there is a distinct that distinction has to be made in this fight because it looks as if many Iraqis are not defending Saddam Hussein. They feel they're defending their country. I've had this debate with a lot of Dio Conservative advocates of the war for a couple weeks now who keep who did argue that the Iraqi people would welcome the invasion and the administration argued that to which gave a sense that it wouldn't be too difficult and that applied and that was that the fighting forces would sort of be swept up in

that and I would say you know that. Another option here nobody like Saddam Hussein and his soon Iraq most rocky people don't as well. But that doesn't mean they're going to like the invaders as well. They could be glad to be rid of Saddam Hussein and still be opposed to the invaders of Iraq and the US and the occupiers and we may be there for two years of a war longer. That's not inconsistent. You may not fit the worldview of a conservative policy analyst who sits in Washington and gazes at the at this from from afar of course the people would welcome us and I will be glad to be rid of this dictator but arm it could well be that they end up disliking both and that's why the war isn't going as quickly as it did and I think expectations were built up because it wasn't a popular endeavor before hand. I mean Bush pushed the numbers up but there was always a 30 to 40 percent that was against it 50 percent 60 percent if you didn't you know unilaterally and you had a whole chorus partially in the administration mainly outside Richard Perle and Bill Kristol and others who made it sound easy and even assertion said we're

going to be welcomed. You know we're going to win says liberation who doesn't want liberation. And it all adds up to expectations and they got caught in that this week with the Syrian and Britain as a part of this coalition and Britain knows better. History of colonialism about whether or not people will welcome you when you happen to come to their country with that an unrealistic expectation. Oh it certainly wasn't and I think that that miscalculation or intelligence failure is much more serious than perhaps not having enough boots on the ground as the generals have been criticizing the fact that the Iraqi people do not want an American occupier. I find it amazing that Dick Cheney was saying that they will welcome us as liberators because for all most scholars and everybody knows about the Middle East is that America is not welcome as an occupier and now stories are being played up about the lawyer for example who helped rescue Jessica Lynch and he will certainly become a hero and perhaps even obtain a

position in the new was granted even if it was better we have it right here in America. Why do you think that. Well because let me just do it this way I went I was one of the journalists who was in Egypt right after the assassination of Anwar Sadat 1980 when I went from my point of view is an enormous tragedy. If you were in Cairo you saw no signs of sorrow among the normal Egyptian people they were they were sad to see Saddam die. So our perception of who the good guys are here not made by me here. It may not square with what the locals view of it is that's one. Let me raise another question here too. When one of the main argument the main justification that was that was it was given for for watching this invasion was a Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction which he might turn over to terrorists and yet we have not seen any evidence that they had they found any weapons of mass destruction they better

find some some or plant some. Or this is the whole war is going to be seen as being totally fraudulent and the in the neoconservatives that David mentioned earlier. Their rationale that they provided for this war is going to be thrown increasingly into question. They've got to find those weapons or the United States has a huge credibility I think that's why you hear more talk of liberation now. Karin the president speaks then talks about weapons of mass destruction and caution I did a whole book on the CIA a few years ago. I can't believe they won't find them one way or the other. I mean they really have to this point in time. It's not you said and in Jackson and do you think that the coalition forces would plant weapons of mass destruction in order to make a stronger case against Saddam Hussein. Well you know the interesting thing is silence speaks volumes about the interesting thing that is in this fight. The CIA folks the guys we look to as being the guy who would do things like this actually have been cautious and in their analysis of what Saddam Hussein had and didn't

have and it's been the Pentagon they've been the hawks on a lot of the sin and turn I think they would try to change the subject which they've been doing. Well whether or not they change the subject it is particularly significant in terms of what happens in a post-Saddam Iraq if in fact the coalition forces are able to oust Saddam Hussein from power to Syria. Wouldn't President Bush has been strangely silent on this matter and Secretary Powell has been talking about it. A little bit saying they're discussing the idea about a role for the international community in general of the United Nations in particular after this. But it would appear that given the sentiments so far expressed by the Iraq instead of them it would be very difficult for the United States to remain as a both an occupying and the governing power in the room certainly and especially if James Woolsey ence is to be head of Iraq in the future. The person who is calling this world war for in fact is talking about expanding the mission just as easy as the former director of the

Social Intelligence Agency. And expanding this to Syria and Iran that he's happy that people like Mubarak in Egypt are feeling a bit shaky now. Well a lot of people are happy that Mubarak is feeling shaky but the problem is if he feels shaky and is being attacked by the United States his people are going to rally behind him and we saw that last summer when a human rights advocate was put in jail by Mubarak in Egypt when criticized by the United States all his friends all the intellectuals all the leftists in Egypt rallied behind the president which is a catastrophe of course but this is what certain kinds of U.S. policies lead to in the Middle East rhetoric and you think that there is to be a role for the United Nations the international community in a post-Saddam Hussein era. I would hope so but I hope we will. We've done the right thing here I'll support the war but when Bush charged that Saddam Hussein was a UN stabilizing force in the region. I

keep going over what of Saddam Hussein was the stabilizing force and that particular part of the world you know and we removed from power what happens. Well Tito was very stabilizing in Yugoslavia. Doesn't mean that it was good to support him. The I think the occupation which I've written a bit about and about James Woolsey getting you know being chosen. They were going to give him the information ministry thought this is a guy the ex director the CIA who got us what you think about the CIA you can only imagine what they think about it in Iraq and elsewhere. They wouldn't take him and put him in charge of the information ministry in charge of the media. Well he's also advocating you know we're in a fourth world war we have to expand it throughout Arabia. They decided not to give him that post but they still want him involved in this and I think this shows that the guys running the show Don Rumsfeld Paul Wolfowitz Dick Cheney are not sensitive. I mean if you're going to do this thing you have to have a degree of humility sensitivity.

That's what you need the cover of the U.N. but Donald Rumsfeld says to me the same person. While I think I quite I was against the war because I didn't think they could do the end of it right. I didn't plan on bringing this up but you mentioned his name Richard Perle who was the chairperson of the Advisory Committee on defense and then after the Seymour Hersh's exposé in which the parents threatened to sue in Britain we now find Richard Perle resigning as chair of the committee nevertheless staying on the committee. What difference does it make. This is another Washington thing. I mean you know this is actually true this is outrageous that a person would be on this planet on a buy every panel will also be pursuing private bench business interests that might be influenced by the war made the notion of conflict of interests is one that does not seem to have touched a sensitive these and again there's that word and you can't use with this administration these people all they don't care about appearances at all. But he's he's removed himself as chair of the committee. He manages to stay on the committee. Is that somehow a victory for somebody here.

I gave Richard Perle probably because he still gets the money so I was the influence. I mean it doesn't matter whether he's Chair or not. The key thing is if Paul Wolfowitz answers his phone calls he has what he wants. You raise the point though that that I think really needs to be addressed here which is let's assume that the war works out the way that the Pentagon and others would like to. What is the what is the fallout in the rest of the Arab world and the rest of the Islamic world from toppling a fellow who whether we like it or not has become seems to have become a hero to other Arab peoples and other Islamic people simply for standing up to the United States. Or we think Mubarak in fact raised the point that this is going to create thousands of new Osama bin Laden is born in the fall. So are we really more secure because of this. Not sure and the answer the question I guess is we don't know. Right and what they're saying in the cafes in Cairo today are you know when someone is slouching around they say a man walks like an Iraqi. And

tomorrow they're going to say die like an Iraqi. We're talking about the war I guess it's time to talk about the domestic issue with which we began the broadcast and that is the Supreme Court this week hearing arguments hearing oral arguments and taking an unusual step of releasing those on arguments on the very same day that they were made in the case of the University of Michigan undergraduate and law school admissions program. All of this outside of the fact that black students were out demonstrating again when the two intriguing things that came up in the oral arguments to me One is that affirmative action may be saved by General Norman Schwarzkopf and the other. And the other military officers who filed a friend of the court brief arguing that race based admission policies are utterly necessary in order for the service academies to turn out the kind of diverse officer corps we need to lead our military. The number of the justices seem to be very intrigued by that and ask questions about it which seem to indicate that they that this is an argument they have to take seriously. That was one of the timing of that brief bit more dramatic. It could could not have been here we are in the middle of a

war in which black officers in particular very very prominently the main spokesman for us and Tam is is General Brooks For example an African-American who was a son of an African-American. And then you get General Schwarzkopf who led the desert straps and so this is this may be the argument that some of the swing justices Anthony Kennedy and Saturday O'Connor may be able to fasten on. Save some for affirmative action. The other thing was the the questions asked by Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas all suggesting that yes he did. Suggesting that they are suggesting that the University of Michigan Law School could solve its diversity problem merely by lowering its standards. And Thomas following up with that by raising the point that you say diversity is necessary for a good education what does that say about historically black colleges and universities which of safely have argued that their strength is that black students will feel more at home there because they're

among or all these That's a that's a very difficult question for advocates of affirmative action to handle and they they as I say the Calvary may have come to that and that's what this is really going to. Discuss in our discussion Gregory Kane and that is the brief filed by Norman Schwarzkopf and other retired generals and retired superintendents of academic military institutions. That's likely to have of the problem. Indeed it probably will but I'm sure the Count On Me is going to be that they're talking about two different situation talk about service academy which sent officers to the military which you know is different from civilian society. The military is authoritarian you have a certain chain of command didn't have the same rights that you have out in civilian society. So therefore it may be necessary in that case but I can argue that it would not be in a say a University of Michigan which is a military school or university of California system which is already done away with affirmative action. A lot of proponents of affirmative action were afraid for an affirmative action case like this to get before the Supreme Court because they assumed it would be a fed accompli it would be a decision against affirmative

action. Now it doesn't seem that clear. Well. It was fascinating to read all the various accounts of the questions being asked is sort of like what used to do with the Politburo criminology trying to figure out what where people are and I think it's still a shame that this isn't broadcast live on for major functions of government that you can't see live and listen to now that's small progress but I'd like to see it live on TV. And it sort of focuses it seems on Sandra Day O'Connor and as often happens in these instances both sides try to target her and they try to give her compromised positions so that she can lean their way. And if you look at it just on the basis of her questions you got the sense that she was 60 40 in favor of the schools and would probably come out with something that they wouldn't like but wouldn't rip up the programs. I think you know in the quote that may be good for affirmative action opponents over the long run because well I think the legal arguments against them and then the cultural trends in society are kind of working

again or working against them of the long run. The Supreme Court doesn't like to do this stuff too often so they have a big case now it's likely they're going to put off other things. So if you get a little win here now it's security for maybe a long while they really seem to be saying that the Libyans are saying you other justices you can go home we're talking to her. I don't know how I don't know how to shoot right now. This is good and what did you get from those. Or a large. What you know the way this is viewed in Europe or in Sweden at least is that this country is now in a climate where you can question affirmative action where you can question the rights of minorities and that this is being done. Once again that we're not surprised that's how Swedes have been reacting to to the OK the climate in the country before we go I want to talk about the case in Texas it's a small town only 5000 people and then 46 people get arrested and most of them seem to

be arrested for being involved with drugs on the testimony of one undercover police officer. And as his history is scrutinized he has no other evidence outside of his own testimony as his history to scrutinize. The judge decides to free 38 of those 46 people because of questions raised not only about his troubled history as a detective but also about his alleged racism. Yeah. And they this is this was a this is even the prosecutors agreed that this was a miscarriage of justice to hire this lunatic and put him out there. This is a guy who has no viable track record as a law enforcement officer he's an ex welder who was put out there who essentially claimed that almost every black person in town was involved in selling crack. And some were locked up and arrested. There was a good loud art Kerry led by Bob Herbert the black columnist for The New York Times. They were forced to take another look at it. Thank God justice prevailed again to let these people go free and hopefully they will prosecute this lunatic

who said these things. I hope they take away the award they gave him for being Texas lawmen of the year for this idea. And what's stunning is that so little evidence he had no physical evidence that they got so many people arrested makes you wonder why juries bother to believe this guy in the first place. I do want to come to more about that. I'm glad build your eyewitness testimony. This is the classic case to prove and it underlines what suden said about the view from Europe that there is a certain environment in the country right now that permits certain kinds of things to take place at least in this case. Apparently somebody caught him. Thank you for joining us. The media and the war at home and abroad. That's next. At least two well-known reporters got the boot this week NBC and National Geographic fired Peter Arnett after his controversial appearance on Iraqi television and

Geraldo Rivera. Fox News was ushered off to Kuwait after his stick with a drawing in the sand to pinpoint his location. Got the thumbs down from Pentagon officials. The Al-Jazeera network has come in for a lot of criticism for displaying shots of prisoners of war and its general coverage of the war but its main viewership is in the Arab world and that makes all the difference. Joining me to discuss who wants to see what and why. Matthew Felling is media director for the Center for Media and Public Affairs. Tim Graham is director of media analysis of the Media Research Center. David Corn of The Nation magazine and a Fox News contributor is still with us as a society of Swedish broadcasting we should mention of course that the latest news on the death of Michael Kelly a columnist for The Washington Post and a former Atlantic Monthly editor So this brings especially for those of us in the media the war a lot closer to home but in terms of media coverage of the war Al-Jazeera has now been kicked out of Iraq and so it is now in a position to say

look the Americans don't like us the Iraqis don't like us we must be doing something right. Is anybody doing. All right. Well I think that before we just gloss over the Kelly incident I think that that that we might be at a serious intersection right now in terms of the Michael Kelly death. I've been concerned for a very long time as to what would happen when a big name journalists died either because of combat or just because of war realities. We saw after the War on Terror got kicked off that the media took awhile to really get warmed up to the idea. But then when Daniel Pearl was slain everybody seemed to perk up and the media became big it became personal to them and they started really investing feeling and emotion and the tenor of the media coverage changed. So I'm just wondering will we see from this point on people becoming more cohesive with the troops and saying this just steels our resolve or will we think it was Peter Johnson displayed in this week's USA Today article. There's a lot of journalists who are deciding this isn't exactly what I signed up

for. Can somebody get me out of here. Indeed we were hearing that journalists who were under the impression that it would be a cakewalk or be at least at the very least a quick war were beginning to say this might not be such a good idea after all. Do you feel about the method. Well I mean obviously you know when you go into a war zone there's that danger. I mean you almost worry for them when they're sitting there saying you know here we are in the middle of a firefight. And I would certainly say you know look that's something that reporters are doing for us just as much as the troops are doing it for us. And you certainly do wish that they that they stay out of harm's way and it's particularly sad for Michael Kelly who's really an excellent journalist and you know probably felt compelled to go because he'd done such a good job in journalism the first time during the Gulf War. And when you said they're doing it for us goes back to my earlier question about whether anybody can get it all right because it would appear that media has to cater to what we see as our primary readership or audience or what have you. So there's no real likelihood that what we see over here

is what people in other countries even want to see. Well it depends what you mean by media to the story to types of media. Some are far more profit driven than say us on the show at the moment. And they have to worry about audience and there's a tremendous row now between MSNBC and FOX and CNN about who's getting what and these reporters a big kick that it's very much a you know competitive thing for you know for you know as they could be to get eyeballs and we just I mean I do Michael a little bit and I'm just really saddened to hear about this today because he was he did such a good job reporting the war back in 91 and the reporting I think isn't really affected dramatically by the embedding process you know. Think in both good ways and in bad ways. I think it's wonderful for the public here any place to see up close what these looks like on the ground. But I do think we get too many small slices this is what Rumsfeld was complaining about. I would complain about probably from a different perspective but we don't get the editing and the and the and the thought and the

perspective that comes from watching something for a day or two if not a week thinking about it and writing about what it means and what the impact might be. And because of all this GI wizardry it's so wonderful to watch David Bloom riding across the desert and tanks that in real time that the media the networks the TV media basically spend so much time showing these things. They don't put on other voices other people who might be able to pull a big picture together and talk about the implications of this and what it might all mean to say you often ask people in foreign countries are you getting CNN Are you watching CNN. Nobody ever asks us are you watching out of them. No that's right and I mean this is all about perspective and the perspective we have from here is the embedded reporters there sitting on the tanks. They are becoming one with the mighty wave of steel. They're not covering the war from from the perspective of

the pool of blood on the ground. And there is almost no such coverage in American media besides papers that are based and have people in Baghdad right now and that is the huge difference because in every other country in the world they have pictures of civilian casualties and they have the Arab perspective they have the people who are speaking on the streets to a much greater extent than than here. And here you know we also see the embedded reporters being impressed by the wave of steel the masculine powerful Bradleys going through the desert and you hear people on the air saying well you know it's difficult for our guys to really distinguish between the enemy and tame villagers. Will we say we pride ourselves on this country of having the freest media in the world and Abbado freedom of expression in a way. At times like these do we sow some sense of taking into consideration the sensitivities of the American people.

The view is that we are watching our own prefers whether it's General Myers or General Franks or general months will show you an Iraqi body for an entire press conference briefing on the war why is that. Well I think it's very interesting. Al-Jazeera Rumsfeld had a problem with the mood swings of the media earlier this week but CNN itself had its own mood swing yesterday with regard to Al-Jazeera. They ran a live press conference with an Iraqi official that was airing on Al-Jazeera. So all of a sudden yesterday they gave them the in premature official this rather than what some people think is just a wire service for the Arab world or some people think is a propaganda tool. And going back to something we were mentioning earlier I do think that they have been really attached to this. Look at what we can do with the embedded reporters. But I've honestly seen in the last few days a maturing on the part of the broadcast networks where they are pulling back from the embeds as much as they where they were. They realize that war is often boring and just because you have a

camera with David Bloom or just because you have it with Jim Axelrod at CBS News doesn't mean you have to go to him over and over and over and you're concerned about objectivity. The embedded journalists naturally they are intermingling with the soldiers they are understanding them. And it's really tough to be as objective as you are trained to in your elite journalism school on a guy who just pulled you into a box or a guy who was protecting you. I think you could argue that the commercial sensibilities you were talking about is that people sort of expect you to root for the troops. And but I think that to some extent what we're seeing in other countries and as she mentioned you know we haven't seen civilians we haven't seen blood we haven't seen these sorts of images. The fact of the matter is we don't see those images here in America when there's an abortion debate. You know there is such a thing as having a standard of saying that's too graphic. To me it becomes a thing of saying we want to see these graphic images because we want to make you sick over your dinner. They worked in Vietnam let's try it again. But the real question is what is the context of these of the blood.

And that is we don't even know especially when television doesn't have anybody in Baghdad anymore hardly do we really know who committed the atrocity who committed the attack who committed. And the same thing goes for people interviewing people on the street. How can we trust people on the street when they're frightened to death about anything they say critical of Saddam Hussein they could end up dead. That's not a good source to you know it's true that's true. Most things in the media how do you ever really truly know that what's being said is true even if it's from the someone on your own team because there's trust your journal also implicitly but there's something there's some. Think about the media picture maybe this is a dilemma that there is no solution for. That shows that the rockets going off. But now what happens on the other side. You know I kind of think of the scene from Launce of Arabia where they watching the shelling and one of the person says Oh God bless the souls of the people underneath that. I was watching some of that shelling today and I said you know not that not of a graphic design but so I wonder what it looks like underneath that image and I am I and my assistant said you know you can find those pictures. We can go to Al-Jazeera the website the Arab news and they are actually

showing those pictures and no one is forced to look at the stuff. Right but I do think there's something to be said you know there's something unusual in the fact that while that is being gathered it's not being gathered and disseminated within the United States for those Americans who would want to see what actually the whole picture looks like whose missile was it. You know that's still the question. And we have somebody like Peter Knight who in the last Gulf War he didn't care where it actually landed. We hadn't read actual report from CNN in 1991 where Peter Arnett would say two missiles just hit a civilian area. Well did you see it. No I just I know it's a civilian area over there. That's not journalism in context. Now if you want to see those images yes we have a new media environment now and you can go find them. You might not have been able to do that in 1991. You can certainly do it. But it's really not only about a lot. I mean it's about identification. If we or you say that we are liberating the Iraqi people while not really caring to talk to them or any other Arab for that matter. I mean I've been in this country for four years watching TV

reporters going around the world and using the countries they visit as backdrops they don't go and talk to the barber in Baghdad or the cafe owner in Cairo. There is no identification with these people. They are out there. And I mean American TV is excellent at empathy and identification with victims in America victims of obesity or you know. Unfair treatment in this country but not anywhere else. Dr Pepper victim you're a victim when you like to be a victim if there's I mean that in America we all are whether we like it or not and Oprah will tell us about four o'clock every day just how bad we have it. But the victims I think that I've been wrestling around this idea of how do we show the blood we show the carnage because war is a very very messy idea and it's a very messy reality and it's context always necessary. I think that what if we're not going to show the soldiers until we've notified their families that's OK with me if we're not going to show the civilian

casualties on the Iraq on the Iraqi side. I I would be more open to showing what we have accidentally inflicted upon them. If we also fair and balanced we also showed what Saddam had done to them. You know what we are actually liberating them from. He has done some atrocious things to them that weren't accidents and if we were going to follow up and then saying we accidentally took while there's a you know there's nothing wrong with showing that stuff and in fact whenever they've gotten any material about his atrocities you know they officially they've given it to our media media you will put it out they won't sit on that stuff and so talk about images because the television we're talking about is I'm sure sure sure sure. It's hard to get these images but we you know. But unlike in Afghanistan or maybe it's kind of like Afghans in Afghanistan there are a lot of civilian casualties. They've got very little play here. Tension in the European press and it's always hard to ascertain what the truth is but that's what journalists do they. This is these sites where I take pictures they

look for missile fragment parts as they as as they did in one of the market attacks or they found out they found a tailfin that had a number that came from a production line out. It's you can always say this is all made up that the Iraqis were like little bit a lot of the young men you know on the market are nevertheless you can always make the case but for the same reason you can be skeptical of our study you should be skeptical outside. But then you trust the journalist try to dig out the truth and presented to the public. Because ultimately we are paying for this it's in our name that this stuff is being at I think you know most journalists are in Baghdad I just don't trust little things about it to Peter Arnett and that is pinned on that went on Iraqi television he was interviewed he was asked to give his opinion he said that essentially the initial plan for the war was a failure and it was a failure because of the way in which the Iraqi troops fought. He was fired for no. Yes it was because he was sorry. No but the fact of the matter is this may have been his opinion but he's going on the propaganda channel of the enemy and saying keep fighting you know we're

winning I mean what kind of encouragement does that give him what he actually said. Does he does he have a copy of the war plan. Does he. It's obvious that our little list is a PITA on its responsibility to give encouragement to anybody. Well that's certainly the what the interview accomplished I mean beyond that I think that he didn't only say it was a failure but he actually seemed to fuel their drive because he said the more body bags we sent you sent to America that's going to really drive up the protest numbers and that's going to drive the poll numbers. And you guys are succeeding you notice. Exactly I mean he opened up the playbook and I mean there is this elusive idea of objectivity that we're going after and I saw the Arnett thing and I thought that NBC made the correct call. And I compared it to somebody covering the Bush campaign or the Gore campaign for The New York Times in 2000 if you see that person's byline every day on the campaign trail saying Bush today did this but you did that and then on CNN he sits down with Judy Woodruff and he says this guy is a clod. He has no idea what he's doing on the record in front of them in front of

God and everybody will have exalt. Time doesn't have thoughts a moment no not without I want the reporters on the beat. That would seriously put in into doubt were objectivity and I would really just glad if your readers want to know what you're putting out if you've proved your case. I think I mean that I do think that Peter Arnett made in this judgment made a mistake or if you're going to go on Iraqi state TV that sold by such as just the government that's murdering and torturing people. You've got to sort of figure out a way not to help them. We are the peerage and I'm afraid that's all the time we have. Thanks to all of our panelists were joining us most of all thanks to you for watching. Stay well. Good night.